[blue-duncan]

"By the way, the definition you post is the one from Webster and thus not the one I said Hodge and Warfield held. The one I said they held was the one By the way, the definition you post is the one from Webster and thus not the one I said Hodge and Warfield held. The one I said they held was the one Bohemund posted some time back which included the pertinacious aspect (which presumes the knowing aspect)."

I think you will find that the definition I posted in #1336 is the same one Bohemund posted at #1238.


"At issue was whether to a heretic one has to know one is dissenting and be stubborn about it"

What is your point? You believe we are heretics for dissenting from what you believe to be the true Biblical Christianity and we believe that you are heretics from dissenting from what we believe to be true Biblical Christianity. You think your Church had it right all along and we think it erred. You think Luther and those that went before and after had it wrong and we think they had it right. There is no statute of limitations on scriptural error so we will commit it to the Holy Spirit for illumination, that's His job.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You are correct, what you posted was from #1238. I was incorrect to confuse it with the other dictionary definition posted by someone else (Zeeba?). But it was a dictionary and thus non-theological definition and it posted by Bohemund. Howeer, in #1251 Bohemund posted the proper theological definition of heresy and it was to that that I have been referring in all of my postings on heresy. It includes the elements of knowledge and pertinacity that are not found either in the Webster dictionary definition that someone else posted or the non-theological definition that Bohemund posted in 1238.

Hodge and Warfield would accept # 1251, not #1238.